Please review: DRAFT Reg of application/samlassertion+xml

[Jeff.Hodges at KingsMountain.com]

> At 09:28 20/09/04 -0700, Jeff.Hodges at KingsMountain.com wrote:
> >Ok, how about this...
> >
> >
> >Magic number(s):
> >     In general, the same as for application/xml [RFC3023]. In
> >     particular, the XML root element of the returned object will be
> >     <Assertion>, and will be in one of the version-specific SAML
> >     assertion XML namespaces, as defined by the appropriate version-
> >     specific SAML "core" specification (see bibliography).
> >
> >     With SAMLv2.0 specifically, the root element of the returned
> >     object may be either <saml:Assertion> or <saml:EncryptedAssertion>,
> >     where "saml" represents any XML namspace prefix that maps to the
> >     SAMLv2.0 assertion namespace URI:
> >
> >        urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:assertion.
> 
> I think the intent here is pretty clear and correct, but I find myself 
> fretting a little at the wording in case of possible misunderstanding, so 
> here's my suggestion for the 1st para:
> 
> [[
> Magic number(s):
>      In general, the same as for application/xml [RFC3023]. In
>      particular, the XML root element of the returned object will
>      have a namespace-qualified name with:
>      - local name: Assertion
>      - namespace URI: one of the version-specific SAML assertion
>        XML namespace URIs, as defined by the appropriate version-
>        specific SAML "core" specification (see bibliography).
> ]]
> 
> I'm not sure that this is better;  mainly, I aimed to avoid the (very
> slight) implication that the root element would always be introduced
> by the literal <Assertion>.  In any case, your 2nd paragraph makes the
> situation clear, so use or ignore my thoughts as you see fit.


ScottC and I chatted about this and feel yer right and it's worth it to 
express it as you have above. So thanks again for the salient comments. a rev 
of both reg's incorp'g the above will be forthcoming.


JeffH